|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Brad Guth wrote:
"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message news:0xrEg.7157$Mz3.5251@fed1read07 Stop inventing terminology. There's nothing "infomercial" or "conditional" about why expecting anyone to try to fly anything resembling a real prototype of the Lunar Lander in Earth's g-field is a priori dumb. The best response you've come up with is insults. Got any "science" to back up your expectation that a prototype _could_ fly in Earth's g-field? Hello, does the phrase "not enough thrust" mean anything to you? Get rid of all the unessential mass, There _was_ no "unessential" mass. It had to be lifted all the way from Earth and that costs ****loads of fuel for every ounce, remember? having only one operator and perhaps a 10th the fuel load, and lo and behold you're at something less than 1/6th the mass. Assuming that's actually true (and I'd like you to go through the LLM design and show exactly what should be left out resulting in 1/6th the original mass and still be flyable), then you have something that will not fly the same as the fully-configured lander. No point in practicing on it, which is what the LLTV/LLRVs were for. Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander. Which removes the intimacy of practicing on the actual hardware. Remember that the attitude control system's feedback loop went through the pilot. Back the **** off there bub, I'm an anarchist. Dubya is exactly as trustworthy as all other politicians that ever lived, which is to say not at all. So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that absolute *******? I call you on your bull**** and you accuse me of supporting The Man. Which bunch of *******s are you supporting by distracting us from them with your bull****? : However that's almost completely irrelevant; you've been claiming : that NASA itself has been the source of a ridiculously, in fact : impossibly unwieldy conspiracy involving thousands of government : employees _and_ contractors _and_ their employees _and_ their : consultants _and_ all their families. Face it, we're talking millions : of people allegedly keeping this secret of yours. How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as official butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have? Thousands, many of which yelled as loud as they could at Nuremburg in hopes of not being hanged for ex post facto whistleblowing. Besides, that's not a good comparison, because: How many rusemaster insiders did our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) require? The Nazis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by whistleblowing _before_ Nuremburg. The opposite is true ever since the Apollo program began; prove it was a fake with inside data and get instant wealth and fame. : Now granted that the administrations and legislations that decide : NASA funding are party-line motivated and could be expected to pass down : unpublished agendas for the NASA administration to follow on pain of : being excluded from any other "cushy" government jobs, especially as : many of them are party-dependent political appointees, but that : completely disregards the rank and file NASA employees who are not : required to have any particular party loyalty and could get a lot of : mileage out of breaking your alleged NASA Omerta. I never once said the vast majority of our NASA collective wasn't perfectly nice and honest. Isn't that a rather important function of any good perpetrated cold-war game plan? Doesn't matter; if you're right the evidence has been right in front of them every day from day one, and NOBODY took advantage of it? And how about all those contractors' employees, consultants, and all their families? What do you claim was the mechanism used to keep all of them silent? When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon of ours? Yet you claim the known hardware wasn't up to the task even while you display your total lack of familiarity with it. Why don't you tell us what kind of hardware _is_ necessary to get the job done? Please avoid any "infomercial, conditional science". And where do you get this "salty moon" crap? Why is there no reflectance spectroscopic data revealing salt on Luna? You ever stop to think what any proportion of salt in the regolith would do to Luna's albedo? Then we have stuff like the Australian-national-operated relay stations that passed non-delayed video from Luna to JPL; what kept the Aussies silent? Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in "chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's nothing but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were in fact headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into. No, I'm dead serious. They had no loyalty to any US agency or individuals, and have found plenty of motivation to embarass the US since then. You'd think at least one of them would take advantage. Sorry, there's just no way to keep millions of mouths shut when, according to you, any one of them, _for the last forty frigging years_ could have snuck out and presented irrefutable evidence supporting your claims for a multimillion dollar book/movie/etc. deal and more than adequate publicity to prevent assassination. Hence, there's no secret to keep. Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own kind) for having gotten put on that stick, Bull****. Cite or retract. and the Pope really doesn't want to discuss those nice Cathars. Popes are warlords in dresses, **** 'em all. Don't get me started. How about those US Mexican wars, They lost, we won. So what? **** the Mexican Permanent Kleptocratic government (the direct descendant of the Catholic Spanish government of Conquistador days) too. or that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force? I only know of five, all of which AFAICT were deliberately designed to fail spectacularly. That they were kept from being spectacles merely indicates interagency infighting in DC. What else is new? Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt administration (like his own father), manage to disregard? Prolly as many as Billary Clinton did. So what? BTW I'd like somebody to explain why a law prohibiting nice, neat, low-risk assassinations of foreign leaders is a good idea. Mark L. Fergerson |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Brad Guth wrote:
: Get rid of all the unessential mass, There _was_ no "unessential" mass. It had to be lifted all the way from Earth and that costs ****loads of fuel for every ounce, remember? Absolute horsepucky on a stick, as there was sufficient outfitting and payload tonnage (including the rather excessive amount of fuel that needn't be included for their terrestrial prototype fly-by-rocket proof-testing. If need be a more powerful main thrust engine and hauling only enough fuel for a few minutes instead of an entire deorbit and extended down-range requirement. Assuming that's actually true (and I'd like you to go through the LLM design and show exactly what should be left out resulting in 1/6th the original mass and still be flyable), then you have something that will not fly the same as the fully-configured lander. No point in practicing on it, which is what the LLTV/LLRVs were for. : Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or : radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander. Which removes the intimacy of practicing on the actual hardware. Remember that the attitude control system's feedback loop went through the pilot. The remote fly-by-wire and/or AI/robotic flight capability of our prototype landers was 100% doable, and way more reliable than any fly-by-butt interface that could only have managed if there were sufficiently powerful momentum reaction wheels involved (of which there were none). After all, those smarter Russians had supposedly accomplished that much, and then some, or didn't they? (not surprisingly, there's nothing of any Russian prototype fly-by-rocket landers either, and we currently have somewhat of an X-prize that's ongoing for the very first of a demonstrated prototype that'll prove itself without demonstrating how to impact and terminate the crew. : So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and : wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that : absolute *******? I call you on your bull**** and you accuse me of supporting The Man. Which bunch of *******s are you supporting by distracting us from them with your bull****? A mainstream status quo bystander (such as yourself) that's within the audience of a given perpetrated fiasco is every bit as guilty as the ones you're getting so much personal enjoyment if not wealth out of watching, and I do think within at least some civilized states there's even constitutionally accepted laws on the books that are being enforced to that affect. : How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as : official butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have? Thousands, many of which yelled as loud as they could at Nuremburg in hopes of not being hanged for ex post facto whistleblowing. Besides, that's not a good comparison, because: But there hasn't been any such "Nuremburg" trials for what our kind have recently done. When if ever are you folks planning on putting our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) on trial for similar crimes against humanity? The Nazis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by whistleblowing _before_ Nuremburg. The opposite is true ever since the Apollo program began; prove it was a fake with inside data and get instant wealth and fame. I've more than done just that, except I'm still a rather poor soul and/or under-funded mad scientist. Doesn't matter; if you're right the evidence has been right in front of them every day from day one, and NOBODY took advantage of it? It actually does matter a great deal, however you're denial is just too deeply sequestered in a bigotry cesspool of unlimited denial, whereas that's the only part that's apparent which "doesn't matter" within your NASA/Apollo koran of lies upon lies until each and every one of them NASA/Apollo cows come home. : When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in : order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon : of ours? Yet you claim the known hardware wasn't up to the task even while you display your total lack of familiarity with it. Prove otherwise, as in put-up or shut-up. You're the one sayting the moon is entirely passive as a guano island, as well as xenon lamp spectrum illuminated and also saying that a nearly 30% inert GLOW massive rocket was good for a two-way ticket to ride. Why don't you tell us what kind of hardware _is_ necessary to get the job done? Please avoid any "infomercial, conditional science". NASA has essentially already demonstrated as to their one-way ticket to ride requirements per payload kg that gets into lunar orbit, as having transpired with much newer and improved rockets (meaning as having far less inert GLOW to deal with) ever since their hocus-pocus Apollo era, as well ESA and soon enough China will be doing just that. And where do you get this "salty moon" crap? Essentially from NASA certified links to external research that was publicly funded; where else? Why is there no reflectance spectroscopic data revealing salt on Luna? Why are you such a born-again certified (AKA dumbfounded) liar, or is being downright stupid your norm? You ever stop to think what any proportion of salt in the regolith would do to Luna's albedo? Most certainly I do. Carbon/sooty salt isn't very reflective, especially if having been mostly covered in those tens of meters deep layers of fluffy and highly electrostatic dust. : Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in : "chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's : nothing but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were : in fact headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into. No, I'm dead serious. They had no loyalty to any US agency or individuals, and have found plenty of motivation to embarass the US since then. You'd think at least one of them would take advantage. Money and of those extremely valuable retirement benefits talks really good, and otherwise by way of that absolutely lethal nondisclosure agreement they each had to sign with their own blood is more than sufficient incentive for keeping their mouth as well as their butt-cheek brains shut as tightly as needed, or else. Spilling whatever beans (though I don't know why any upside-down Australian would have had any beans to spill, would only represent instant death to that individual and of any close family and associates that might impose further risk. However, as I'd said, money usually talks, though a bullet to your head or of whatever else accomplishes the task of nullifying a given threat would be a whole lot cheaper and of much better insurance if there's any remaining doubt. : Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with : getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own : kind) for having gotten put on that stick, Bull****. Cite or retract. No retract, at least not until I learn otherwise. There were those mostly nice Romans, and then there were all of those collaborating Roman Jews that were seriously ****ed off at one of their own kind. Go figure. : and the Pope really doesn't want to discuss those nice Cathars. Popes are warlords in dresses, **** 'em all. Don't get me started. Good for you. Kick another Pope butt on my behalf. : How about those US Mexican wars, They lost, we won. So what? **** the Mexican Permanent Kleptocratic government (the direct descendant of the Catholic Spanish government of Conquistador days) too. Fair/moral fight? (I think not!) : or that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force? I only know of five, all of which AFAICT were deliberately designed to fail spectacularly. That they were kept from being spectacles merely indicates interagency infighting in DC. What else is new? The norm of incest cloned LLPOF politics isn't new, nor was our mutually perpetrated cold-war or that of our MI/NSA hocus-pocus of those NASA/Apollo missions. : Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other : serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW : Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt : administration (like his own father), manage to disregard? Prolly as many as Billary Clinton did. So what? You mean "so what's the difference", as being within your status quo or bust mindset. BTW I'd like somebody to explain why a law prohibiting nice, neat, low-risk assassinations of foreign leaders is a good idea. We've been there and at least attempted to do just that. We're just not very good at doing such things in the most effective manner unless there's something like oil or some other energy reserves involved, although even that much of an incentive as of lately has been nothing but a sorry butt load of collateral damage and blood-bath carnage of the innocent, at thus far costing us 10+ trillions and counting, with no apparent end in sight. Dr. HotSalt and Mark L. Fergerson, Why are we constructing that multi-hundred million if not multi-billion dollar 104 acre fantasy world/fortress of ours within Iraq? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com The easiest explanation, given the differences between what was said on the sites you referenced and what you claimed, is that you've confused your units of radiation. And no, I'm _not_ going to ignore the data gathered by the only organization that ever carried out Lunar landings -- that would be insane. Christ almighty on a stick, Jordan, I've been over and over this a million times, and no matters how hard and/or how often you'd care to stipulate that we've walked on that moon, there's simply no such replicated proof (the required physics nor their supposed replicated science simply isn't there to behold), not via any hocus-pocus fly-by-rocket lander and especially not even via those absolutely wussy retroreflectors that at best contribute fewer photons than any of their Apollo impact craters that's subsequently coated with the vaporised remains of whatever we'd sent to it's demise. Besides, that naked moon of ours is simply and unavoidably too anticathode gamma and hard-X-ray lethal, not to mention double-IR roasting by day and/or as continually pulverised enough to vaporise salt. How end-user friendly do you actually think the cosmic influx and of that solar wind actually is? Do you folks actually think and/or want others to perceive that such warm and fuzzy solar and cosmic influx is passive? Do you folks expect others to perceive the raw/unfiltered solar illumination influx is exactly as though derived from the spectrum of a xenon lamp? At merely an average of having been on the receiving end of obtaining one wussy micron per year as collecting from all of that available space debris and of meteorites and of their subsequent impact generated dust, plus from whatever's subsequently contributed via those horrific secondary impact shards; just how little dust should that moon have to offer, and how otherwise fluffy or whatever clumping or otherwise compacted should that supposedly old moon and of that fluffy moon-dust that's apparently none reactive actually be? Our pathetic NASA can't hardly even shine when their stuff finally/(sort of) works. For example; their old DC-X test flights / DeltaClipper.mov http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/...ltaClipper.mov http://www.orbitersim.com/v2/read.asp?id=19376 http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X With 24,000+ kgf, it had actually worked with energy and thus payload to spare, though I believe we still haven't been properly informed as to the extent of their applied rocket-science, nor as to appreciating the rather excessive amount of their GLOW or of their nearly 50% inert portion thereof (that's without shielding and without live payloas of crew nor of any expedition outfitting), much less as to the 9800 kg of fuel which had been intended to last only a few minutes (I'm thinking they should have used h2o2/RP-1 or better yet h2o2/c3h4o), nor sharing as to whatever extent they'd instead relied upon highly advanced computers plus so easily could have incorporated momentum reaction wheels. The DC-X had otherwise proven that as of three decades after our initial Apollo fiasco, in that we'd finally accomplished what it would have taken (though still representing a rather hefty sucker, flight time limited and never once drop tested) as a remote pilotted and/or AI/robotic controlled fly-by-rocket capability. Unfortunately, of having applied nearly three decades more advanced rocket-science and under the ultimate of locally controlled conditions, they had 7 out of 12 as failures. (not exactly a great confidence builder, especially if it was your butt headed for that physically dark and nasty moon) In other words, our NASA had invested into another extremely spendy effort that can't be openly touted nor much less shared for whatever the truth it represents. As in no matters what, the public and of the international science and of the space exploration groups within are simply not allowed to realize the full potential and/or grief of whatever the spendy learning curve, nor otherwise as to learning exactly how badly snookered they have all been, as in summarily screwed, blued and tattooed for life. The NASA Delta Clipper was their best effort prototype of any such fly-by-rocket spaceship/lander is essentially devoid of sufficient internal specifics, whereas such expertise remains as somewhat stealth/invisible as were those WMD in Iraq. Obviously the DC-X/DC-XA had functioned at least part of the time, though apparently they'd cheated by way of having eliminated those pesky pilot error factors by way of being so extensively AI/computerised, and otherwise as having spent their fun and games budget for the next decade on behalf of accomplishing just that much. Of course, attempting to honestly discuss anything remotely similar as to those previous hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo fly-by-rocket landers that had to deal with those pesky lunar mascons, plus hauling a fairly good amount of live and accessory payloads, including sufficient fuel loads that was unavoidably changing their CG by the second, and otherwise having incorporated plenty of other unavoidable inert mass to deal with (such as packing along their return-home package), though officially never once having accomplished an actual prototype (reduced mass/increased thrust) test craft on behalf of any honest efforts for accomplishing the controlled task of an incoming, down-range and soft landing of their very own, certainly not as directly astronaut pilotted nor even as having been remote piloted, nor much less as fully AI/robotically having acconmplished squat. Yet supposedly never a single hitch within any of those controlled deorbits from 100 km, of getting their butts safely down-range past each of those lunar mascons and then maneouvered to each of their soft landings where there wasn't hardly any depth of dust to be found, and not even all that dusty nor all that dark of terrain for as far as their EVAs and unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and all of that accomplished without benefit of their landers having the sorts of computer interfaced fly-by-wire management of flight stability via those above GC reaction thrusters, nor having any of those airframe momentum reaction wheels as likely incorporated within NASA's Delta Clipper. It's as though all the good folks associated with those DC-X/DC-XA flights were sworn to their usual cloak and dagger and otherwise lethal nondisclosure policy (each having signed their soul to that internal policy in their own blood) because, at all cost the truth simply couldn't ever be told, much less publicly demonstrated at even a fully secured (AKA need to know) air show without spilling a few too many beans, such as our not even having so much as the unreliable fly-by-rocket capability as of the Apollo era. You folks that insist upon believing we've walked on that physically dark and nasty moon, and somehow our astronauts and their Kodak film that was near-UV and UV-a sensitive as well as easily prone to being affected by radiation, as somehow having lived entirely unscaved as to tell us about it, are either sick little puppies or you've become the very worse of collaborating minions in support of whatever your LLPOF Skull and Bones cult represents. I for one totally agree that we need to focus our best talents and resources upon those new and improved missions as per sending off the sorts of sufficiently rad-hard robotic probes. However, what we have here is a serious priority need of kicking Usenet butt, then as to kick a few other sorry butts that have been nothing but mainstream liars and systematic intellectual bigots of the worse possible kind. Don't suppose there's any honest Usenet intentions of these insider folks, as for their ever becoming the least bit open mindset, any more so likely than hearing from our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) that his actions and of those closely associated and of a few too many before his administration were nothing short of having imposed their crimes against humanity and of otherwise continually raping our global warming environment to boot. As to their excluding of whatever's evidence that doesn't happen to please your mainstream status quo or bust mindset, whereas the NASA/Apollo ruse of the century simply isn't working, now is it, any more so than is their perpetual denial of denial being of any further use. But then liars are in auto-default of their denial being in auto-protect denial; so what's the difference? We need to think along the lines of the somewhat mass produced and thereby affordable and fully expendable rad-hard science for obtaining those new and improved instruments and of deploying such as robotics rather than pushing our frail DNA over the edge, along with all the necessary applied technology that we simply do not have for sustaining a mission with human crew. As of today's capability, of what micro-probes and/or of relatively small robotics can obviously survive in the most extreme of places, that are of places otherwise taboo/off-limits as to even the most advanced forms of applied technology that's intended for sustaining our frail DNA, and supposedly of returning it home as none the worse off for wear, of which thus far simply can not be accomplished. For the old hocus-pocus Apollo gipper; Here's one more of my somewhat dyslexic alternative reviews, at considering the cosmic radiation impact upon your frail DNA while situated on or anywhere near that anticathode moon of our's, thus making my argument for having the 50t/m2 available to the CM/ISS abode as being within spec of what long-term survival at even 60,000 km away from our physically dark and nasty moon has to offer, as being not such a bad idea. According to our NASA certified science with regards to the cosmic influx of roughly one hit per second per cm2, the following is merely extrapolated in order to estimate the lunar surface environment that's without benefit of having a magnetosphere, therefore by rights I'm being rather conservative, as if anything the naked moon unavoidably receives more than it's fair share of merely one cosmic hit/cm2/sec. However, at taking on merely those 36e6 cosmic hits/m2/hr, and for using the conservative square root of that amount = 6e3 mrem or 6 rem/hr. A TBI(total body irradiation) of .06 Sv/hr is obviously survivable for several hours worth of exposure, that is if that were the one and only amount of dosage your DNA had to worry about. Humans living with gamma and of the unavoidable hard-X-rays isn't exactly doable: Of course, outer space and essentially that of our naked moon is not 2D, but rather 3D/cubic, whereas your 3D body and of the 3D spacecrafe and/or lunar terrain surrounding it is therefore not limited to the m2 worth of cosmic influx. Instead, your 3D body might be worth roughly 0.1 m3 which equals 100,000 cm3, making it into a cosmic target that's 10 fold as bad off. Therefore taking on 360e6 cosmic hits/hr, and if we're using the same conservative conversion into mrem of taking the square root makes that internal dosage of DNA trauma worthy of 19e3 mrem or 19 rem/hr. Unfortunately, you're never alone while moonsuit walking about, whereas you're entire body and frail DNA within are continually surrounded by at least 3.14e6 m2 of that physically dark and nasty lunar anticathode terrain of physical matter, that's roughly half again as dense as aluminum and otherwise better than 3 times the density of your body, and thereby unavoidably more reactive in a bad sort of way of generating those nastier forms of secondary/recoil energies of soft-gamma and hard-X-rays. Since the lunar atmosphere is supposedly so sparse (merely a little sodium/salty by day), the amount of mass or atmospheric shield density that's between yourself and any of those surrounding 3.14e6 m2 that are naturally and unavoidably being anticathode at doing their thing, of each m2 emitting humanly lethal dosage, whereas this outcome is not by any means a good sign. 3.14e6 * 0.06 Sv = 188.4e3 Sv/hr, whereas if your body were only getting 0.1% of that surrounding dosage is still worth 188 Sv/hr. This is where being a rad-hard robot gets to looking as a really good idea. Of course, if we'd ever established those interactive science probes on the lunar deck, or even having established that science platform as efficiently station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone, as such these efforts would have long ago eliminated all of the swag of such speculations that myself and others have had to make do with. Thus far we're not even getting the honest science about our moon from ACE that once a month has a really good look-see, and not surprisingly our moon was even banished by our MESSENGER flyby. It's as though our moon is the most taboo/nondisclosure orb next to Venus and then Sirius, whereas any of those three items are never getting the attention they deserve, and subsequently generation after generation of students are essentially having to learn via infomercial-crapolla-science instead of the truth. Unfortunately, each and every time I've taken the initiative upon myself, as having suggested deploying extremely low cost alternatives, for getting small/micro science probes or of those within my JAVELINs as implanted into our moon, whereas this is when all the usual mainstream status quo of their wag-thy-dogs to death of their infomercial flak started to fly. Instead of getting a productive Usenet community think-tank of folks honestly sharing in the best available science that's replicated, and of sharing upon other viable ideas and/or alternatives, instead we get MOS anti-think-tankism of their insufferable Usenet naysayism in the forms of topic/author stalking, bashings and wherever possible banishments applied, along with whatever's the evidence that's shared on behalf of our constructive arguments getting excluded if such evidence represents the least bit of whatever rocks their good ship LOLLIPOP. If that's not bad enough, we also get to receive an extra worth of PC infecting dosage from their NOVA/GOOGLE/Usenet server accommodated gauntlet, of delivering those absolutely pesky spermware/****ware to continually deal with, plus that of our email accounts getting trashed with further butt-loads of their worse possible infected files, and otherwise for years I've had hundreds of those pesky hang-up phone calls that are obviously intended to impose as much damage as possible by remote means, that which our cloak and dagger MI/NSA spooks have entirely at their disposal and within their intentions as to utilize every means available without spilling any of their precious nondisclosure beans (such as our perpetrated cold-wars that as of lately have produced such extensive collateral damage and carnage of the innocent). In other words, there's apparently so much that I'm right about that it's getting a wee bit hot and nasty to be sharing whatever without involving yet another round of status quo flak. So, if you're at all interested in our moon, Venus or our orbital association with the Sirius star/solar system, as such I'd advise being prepared for taking on the absolute worse of the worse sorts of nasty things to happen, and so much so that it could become a whole lot safer for those Venusians or visiting ETs as having existed/coexisted on Venus than it is for those of us right here on this polluted and subsequently global warming Earth that's about to go WW-III postal in order to further cover thy perpetrated cold-war butts. As I've said before, the geothermally active surface environment of Venus is simply a whole lot safer than Earth when it comes down to the solar/cosmic levels of Sv. That Venusian environment is obviously not Earth like (more or less hell like), but as such it also isn't all that humanly insurmountable if a gram of intelligent common sense gets applied (a halfwit village idiot should be qualified). The ESA Venus EXPRESS mission has been helping to prove this argument to be true, especially once their PFS instrument gets into action (as by rights it should), that will better map the surface of that geothermally active terrain to a much greater resolution and extent than previously obtained (as limited only by their highly elliptical polar orbit or otherwise foiled by way of our spooks interfering with their to/from command instructions and/or merely corrupting their mission data). - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Brad Guth wrote: "Jordan" wrote in message oups.com The easiest explanation, given the differences between what was said on the sites you referenced and what you claimed, is that you've confused your units of radiation. And no, I'm _not_ going to ignore the data gathered by the only organization that ever carried out Lunar landings -- that would be insane. Christ almighty on a stick, Jordan, I've been over and over this a million times, and no matters how hard and/or how often you'd care to stipulate that we've walked on that moon, there's simply no such replicated proof ... The Apollo missions were broadcast on global television and confirmed by every Great Power's scientific establishments, including the _Soviet_ scientific establishment, which not only had no interest in supporting this supposed hoax but every interest in exposing such a hoax if it existed. Your statement is therefore absurd. snip the rest of the gibberish - Jordan |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com The Apollo missions were broadcast on global television and confirmed by every Great Power's scientific establishments, including the _Soviet_ scientific establishment, which not only had no interest in supporting this supposed hoax but every interest in exposing such a hoax if it existed. Your statement is therefore absurd. Too bad for you, and of your all-knowing naysayism that's based entirely upon our hocus-pocus of NASA's infomercial-science plus their butt-loads of evidence exclusions. Sorry that you're so easily snookered and otherwise having been so terribly dumbfounded for all of your pathetic brown-nosed minion of a life that can only suck and blow. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Brad Guth wrote: "Jordan" wrote in message oups.com The Apollo missions were broadcast on global television and confirmed by every Great Power's scientific establishments, including the _Soviet_ scientific establishment, which not only had no interest in supporting this supposed hoax but every interest in exposing such a hoax if it existed. Your statement is therefore absurd. Too bad for you, and of your all-knowing naysayism that's based entirely upon our hocus-pocus of NASA's infomercial-science plus their butt-loads of evidence exclusions. Sorry that you're so easily snookered and otherwise having been so terribly dumbfounded for all of your pathetic brown-nosed minion of a life that can only suck and blow. Wow ... a reply with absolutely _no_ informational content. Not only does it not address my point, it isn't even a relevant set of insults _based_ on the point (since "naysayism" in this context would be the claim that manned Lunar expeditions were _impossible_, not possible -- it's not as if Man has always had a dream of _faking_ Lunar landings!) I'm impressed. - Jordan |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
Wow ... a reply with absolutely _no_ informational content. Not only
does it not address my point, it isn't even a relevant set of insults _based_ on the point (since "naysayism" in this context would be the claim that manned Lunar expeditions were _impossible_, not possible -- it's not as if Man has always had a dream of _faking_ Lunar landings!) And once again you've been setting an information example by way of quoting from your NASA/Apollo koran. Way to go, Jordan. I'd thought this topic was about how hot in more ways than heat that our moon is, and of otherwise how not so hot Venus is in more ways than just heat. You're the one that's rejecting the regular laws of physics, not me. You're the one that'll believe anything that's in NASA/Apollo print, as though it's the words and pictures from God. You're the one that basing nearly everything of the past, present and future upon infomercial-science and those conditional laws of physics, not me. You're the one that's still snookered and totally dumbfounded to the point of no return. You can't get your butt-cheek brains unstuck from that space-toilet, yet you're telling others how our moon is so end-user friendly, and that spending trillions on doing Mars is a good thing. Sorry if I simply don't get your drift any more so than I get tomcat's drift of spending every last cent and energy resource we've got on your behalf. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Our moon is hot, Venus is not
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
message ink.net What exactly is your constipated problem with your intellectual flatulence this time? Geesh, is that the best you can do? I'm insulted you couldn't be more creative. In any case, truth hurts, doesn't it? In any case, I'm certainly glad that I'm not a Thrid Reich collaborating minion, much less brown-nosed and intellectually butt-wipe worthy like yourself. Obviously I'm right about out moon being downright hot-hot-hot, and freaking nasty to boot! I'm also right about Venus being somewhat newish though survivable, that is only if you weren't such a naysay bigot. Here's my Usenet hot potato, as offered once more for the old gipper: Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon would have been so much worse off than our merely getting excessively thawed out. Good thing we have that nearby moon responsible for most of our global warming, and for representing our last ice age thaw which this Earthly environment will ever see. Henry Kroll and myself are into our usual exploratory research and subsequent deductive thinking, whereas we're still proposing that intelligent/intellectual life as having evolved entirely upon this Earth may simply have been a wee bit pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated a little too far away from our sun that simply wasn't quite as active and thereby as nicely radiating as it is today, and especially extra iffy should Earth be having to manage this task without the enormous benefits of such a nearby moon. Proto-Earth had obviously once upon a time offered a nearly Venus like atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and obviously having sustained such complex happenstance of extremely large and somewhat bulky life, but perhaps not offering all that much environmental quality nor of sufficient diversity, and especially if still limited to existing within or of the below-surface environment, and so much worse yet if the majority of mother Earth's above surface environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly entirely sub-frozen solid for so much of the time. As clearly indicated by way of those ice core samples, depicting each of the many ice-ages that were consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle, that's having represented such an extensive planetology worth of environmental energy differential, whereas in so much difference that such vast global thermal cycles simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital mechanics without involving our moon, nor likely of sufficient solar energy fluctuation cycles without having to involve another sun. Unfortunately, this simple task of our asking others to contribute constructively on what's clearly outside their cozy mainstream status quo box, whereas obviously that's not exactly going down without a damn good fight, as that sort of fair and balanced open mindset simply hasn't been transpiring as of long before we came along, at least not without involving a few dead bodies of those mindset upon sustaining their one and only outlook, which has been cultivated in order to suit their one and only pagan faith-based interpretation, and unfortunately that sort of naysay mindset simply can't be altered regardless of the physics and best available science that's replicated. Something else of a stellar like significant influence has allowed Earth to freeze so extensively, and then to have thawed on the 100,000 year cycle. The only problem with this well established history is that by now we should have been deep into our next freeze cycle. It is thought by many that human activity alone has been the culprit, as of lately having contributed so extensively to our failing environment, in that we humans alone are the primary cause of the accellerated global warming fiasco that's showing us no remorse. The best available science tends to support this analogy, although if life and of orbital mechanics were only so simple, as such I'd agree that human contributions and otherwise direct damage to our environment has been sufficiently proven as having an affect that's anything but beneficial to our long term quality of life. As further pointed by Henry Kroll's and my ongoing research, there has been no apparent indications of sufficient lunar orbital fluctuations that's in any way capable of itself being associated with all of those previous ice-age cycles, in fact if there's anything that's scientifically and being orbital physics perfectly clear, is that our moon had been unavoidably cruising so much closer and therefore would have been more so moderating to our environment, if not having entirely prevented such previous deep cycles of ice-ages. We also believe the best available evidence and science we've got demonstrates that our moon has only been involved with that of the latest thaw, which seems to have no apparent end in sight. This analogy from the best available science is what's suggesting that our currently still salty and otherwise once upon a time icy proto-moon hasn't been orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we'd been informed, much less having been created by way of any Mars like impactor. Taking a little notice as to how much orbital energy that moon of ours currently represents, and thereby affording an unavoidable inside and out influence upon Earth's environment. Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf Converting those terrific gravity related Newtons worth of such orbital kgf into raw energy of joules (Newton = 0.1 kg/m/s) and (1 kg/m/s = 9.80665 joules): The associated centrifugal energy worth of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2e20 joules The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25:1 Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18 joules/yr 8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr 913.6e12 jhr/3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254 gigajoules) A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of gravitation force as also converted into joules of energy gets this amount of applied energy a little more impressive; http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...14/i4/moon.asp Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long ago." "There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70 million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or 30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)." If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; 30e18 kgf * 9.807 = 2.94e20 Joules At the supposed ongoing recession of .04 m/yr = 2.942e20/25 = 11.768e18 J/yr The subsequent energy of recession per second: 11.77e18/31.54e6 = .3732e12 or 373.2e9 J (recession energy = 373 gigajoules) - In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and trust that I've not yet taken into account the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to compensate for the drag coefficient, nor of have I included the reflected IR and FIR worth of whatever else that physically dark moon has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific amount of energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected Earth's platetonics and perhaps towards keeping that inner laler that's up against our outer shell that's surrounding our molten iron core in a sufficient tidal motion, thereby extensively pumping up and otherwise sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically essential magnetosphere, that's unfortunately in the process of failing us at the rate of 0.05%/year, perhaps every bit as Global warming lethal with 10,000 deaths per year currently attributed to various skin cancers that are directly caused by the excess amounts of cosmic, solar and lunar derived gamma nad hard-X-ray energy that's getting through our insignificant atmosphere, that's going to leave us in great strides as the magnetosphere fails to fend off those solar winds. Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we've known it wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen hell of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth w/o moon. From other research and of perfectly reasonable conjectures that fit entirely within the regular laws of planetology physics, from which we've also been informed that early Earth and therefore most likely prior to our having a moon, is when this environment had a 50+ bar (Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere, that obviously represented early life upon Earth didn't require the benefits of any moon or that of the stabilized magnetosphere. As it is (w/o drag coefficient or secondary IR/FIR), and especially if going by the hour, it seems as though a great deal of available recession energy either way. Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr, excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much closer and if created via a Mars impactor would have been initially receding at the much faster rate of 6+ km/s at it exited the physical real of Earth's surface, whereas the more likely arrival and subsequent glancing impact of our once upon a time icy proto-moon (that which currently represents such an absolutely horrific amount of ongoing applied energy), plus having ever since accommodated those extremely beneficial tidal affects (inside and out), in that if this amount of existing orbital energy were removed from our environment would cause a great deal of harm in many ways other than the loss of it's nifty moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR/FIR worthy albedo that's also representing a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of sustaining our environment that's still thawing out from the last ice age, and we believe so much so beneficial that if this moon as is were to be removed, whereas Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of mostly jellyfish life, but our environment would also unavoidably and rather extensively start to ice itself up to quite an extent. We believe that life upon this Earth was simply situated a bit too far away from the sun, especially if it were having to manage without the enormous benefits of our moon, and it only gets worse yet if this life were having to manage upon the surface without the extra benefit of a substantial magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we know it simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived above the surface without the enormous energy influx and physical modualtion and thermal moderation benefits of the moon. Unfortunately, not only is the moon still moving itself away from us, but so has the magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year. (we think those two factors are somewhat related to one another) Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode of a naked moon (Earth's revolving mascon), as though it's no longer such a big deal. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html Unfortunately, all forms of human recorded history or otherwise of earlier proto-human depicted history are those extensively if not entirely limited to the time since our last ice-age. It's exactly as though we hadn't obtained a moon prior to that cycle of a badly frozen time, and it's also as though whatever's intelligent/intellectual life upon this Earth hadn't actually existed/coexisted to any extent prior to the last ice-age. So, what's so entirely different as to our last ice age and of the subsequent thaw? I totally agree that proto-life as having formulated under a much thicker atmosphere, below the surface and even from within salty ice was perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth would have been doing it's thing of radiating and of venting geothermal energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus unavoidably having created a great deal of complex opportunities for the random happenstance and chemistry on behalf of local and panspermia life to have eventually gotten off to a good start (although our best efforts thus far haven't managed to simulate nor otherwise having accomplished such DNA formulation from scratch on behalf of even having created the most basic forms of such intelligent proto-life). Using the soil and/or of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a viable shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation, as well as for having 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would have extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon and w/o magnetosphere. Earth’s atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs by; Octave Levenspiel, Thomas J. Fitzgerald and Donald Pettit "Our sister planet and nearest neighbor, Venus, has an atmosphere of 90 bar pressure, consisting of 96% CO2 (5). Why should Earth be so different? Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it consisted primarily of CO2." http://journals.iranscience.net:800/...l/12learn.html This extra pressure and of mostly CO2 would also have represented a great deal of buoyancy, that should have made life for the larger species (as well known to roam about Earth's surface as of millions of years ago) considerably more bearable and even flyable at great bulk. Therefore, large scale life as we know evolved, as well as having gradually adjusted to such pressure and even as surviving within the concentrations of CO2 and sulphurs. CO2 alone (especially of dry CO2) is not even taboo to life as we know it, whereas even in great amounts and under such terrific pressure is just representing a different environment that takes a little getting used to, in much the same as other life upon Earth that survives at great ocean depths and near to where it's hot enough to melt certain alloys has been proven as doable. My fundamental two part question is: How would the purely terrestrial evolution of intelligence have been influenced or otherwise related to our having or not having a moon, and/or that of our not having or as per having a viable magnetosphere that's essentially of what's defending our relatively thin remainder of an atmosphere? Part two of the above question: Excluding the basic intelligence worth of a given species survival that's proven as often being a whole lot smarter than what many humans seem to have at their disposal, what if anything does human intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational thoughts (including that of our learned and thus cultivated bigotry, greed and arrogance) have to do with planetology or that of various orbital mechanics? PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in Nature and ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm Perhaps this one should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the box is extremely lethal, whereas perhaps this report should also have addressed the fundamental physics as to what other sorts of glancing impactor(s) could have given enough rotational energy to have initially started the outer surface rotating as different than our molten interior, or simply having mascon motivated our Earth's interior, thus giving us our actively mascon motivated magnetosphere to start with. Clearly our previous mainstream thinking has been primarily limited or rather sequestered free thought by way of whatever our spendy mainstream infomercial-science plus faith-based and thus skewed science had to guide us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly based upon their religious faith approved Mars impactor notion has been representing their all-knowing and apparently the one and only viable alternative (as though God had spoken), that which continually gets published and otherwise promoted at public expense, that's also sufficiently similar to the Alan Guth accelerating expansion/BIG-BANG or "Inflationary Universe" theory that's certainly very compatible with the pro-intelligent/creation and thus keeping within the pro-faith based realm of God's creation being the general rule, that is unless you wouldn't mind losing all credibility and most likely your job plus seeing your entire career and of everything associated going down the nearest space-toilet, at least that's how insecure and/or immoral most religious cults and of their political partnerships have managed in the past, and remains as how they would still most likely deal with such fools as outsiders that would suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved and thus certified and accepted by way of God's pagan replacement(NASA/Apollo). At least that's my honest impression as based upon how this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell treats whatever's rocking their boat, that which clearly has no apparent intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - January 28, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 1 | January 31st 05 09:33 AM |
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 23rd 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 | [email protected] | History | 0 | December 23rd 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | September 28th 03 08:00 AM |